Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Shlomo Avineri "Drills one out of the Park"

In today's Haaretz, Columnist and Professor Shlomo Avineri hits a "Home Run" (a column that is so, so very right) when he says that there is No Realistic Chance at Permanent Middle East Peace.

I would quote this article in full but I believe I could run afoul of copyright infringement so I will simply print the following:

Even those, like myself, who believe that the settlements are a political and moral mistake, would be naive to believe that a democratic government can easily evacuate hundreds of thousands of settlers; that the Palestinians will give up the right of return; that a slogan like "Jerusalem, capital of two states" can resolve the tangle of problems involved in the city's status; or that the Palestinians - who do not believe the Jews are a nation - can accept the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews
.
We must change our approach and understand that there is now no chance of a permanent agreement. There is only one way forward, as in Cyprus, Kosovo and Bosnia: lacking a realistic chance of negotiations on a permanent status agreement, diplomatic efforts must be invested in alternative arrangements - interim agreements; confidence-building measures; unilateral (but mutually acceptable) steps; and continued pragmatic cooperation on the ground.

In political jargon, it is a transition from the failed attempt to attain a comprehensive solution to partial steps of conflict management with the final goal of "two states for two peoples" constituting the diplomatic horizon. The parties agree to an endgame on principle, but are aware of the difficulties in attaining it now.

Avineri is absolutely correct here. The Palestinian Polity is simply not ready for compromise as recent comments from President Abbas and Ambassador Areikat show, not too mention the lunatics in Hamas.

But that doesn't let the Israeli Government off the hook either. It's not like the Likud and their Righist buddies in the coalition are dealing in good faith either. Right now, neither side is at a place where they want to end the status quo, which is too bad because the status quo is toxic for both Israelis and Palestinians.

As Avineri says:

"....Pious talk of a final agreement in a year or two is no substitute for realistic policy which takes into account the serious state of affairs on the ground. Only those without unrealistic utopian illusions can promote both Palestinian and Israeli interests simultaneously and assist both peoples to emerge, very slowly over time, from the harsh grip of the conflict"

After having dealings with both One State anti-Zionists and Super Nationalist Zealots I can honestly say that Avineri nails this one. Neither of these two groups that dominate the blogosphere (and their reflected compatriots on the groun) seem to care one bit about the the other side and what is really at stake. By promoting this kind of myopia both sides can feel smugly comfortable but honestly contribute nothing towards a solulton except hard feelings.

Thank you Prof. Avineri for this great article

2 comments:

  1. livosh1, here.

    I respectfully disagree with Shlomo Avineri, whom I've long admired. He is too accepting of the permanency of the settlements. I think he is just laying the groundwork for continuation of the status quo. And that is so incredibly destructive to all parties to the conflict.

    The only way forward is to keep pushing for a two-state resolution to the conflict. Even though neither side presently is willing to elect leaders with the courage to make the necessary sacrifices to end the conflict, that does not always need to be the case, and people of good will should work (even harder) to clean up the dreck on their respective side.

    Anything else is a catastrophe, including settling for half a loaf, as Avineri suggests.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey livosh... great to see you commenting here.

    I think he is not accepting the permancy of the settlements as much as he is suggesting incremental change.

    Maybe I read him wrong but I see him doing this in tandem with your second paragraph and I agree with your commentary as well on the second paragraph.

    Please keep posting here.

    ReplyDelete